Would you consider the Christian Standard Bible ...

Would you consider the Christian Standard Bible to be formal equivalence or functional (i.e dynamic) equality?

 

It’s in the formal equivalence camp.
But the CSB translation philosophy statement uses the term, “Optimal Equivalence”; which is obviously one step better than simply formal equivalence... :Wink

Rob

 

optimal equivalence, doing for the Critical texts what Nkjv did for TR one!

 

I use the CSB.

However, I disagree with Rob's comment that the CSB is a formal equivalence translation.

In my way of thinking, the term formal equivalence applies to the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV, RSV/ESV, YLT.

The "optimal equivalence" of the CSB is more a marketing concept than anything else. At first I nibbled at the optimal equivalence concept--the "middle way" between formal and dynamic translations. But now I see the CSB as a dynamic equivalence translation with a few language quirks. In fact, the CSB is very similar to the NIV.

Today, that is how I see things on my Bible Favorites book shelf.

 

Yes, I agree. Basically, the CSB is slightly more literal than the NIV.

 

The Csb was approved by the group that checks to see just how gender inclusive the translation was, and they rejected the Niv 2011 due to it being too much into that!

 

Tim Bayly, Executive Director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood when the 'Colorado Springs Guidelines for Translation of Gender-Related Language in Scripture' were issued in 1997, scrutinized the Christian Standard Bible and concluded that "the CSB is exactly the kind of translation that the Colorado Springs Guidelines were written to oppose."

baylyblog.com/blog/2017/06/christian-standard-bible-atlantic-got-it-right

"Denny Burk [claims]...his denomination's Bible translation honors the Colorado Springs Guidelines....Burk is wrong....Burk wasn't at the Colorado Springs meeting and didn't write or sign the Colorado Springs Guidelines. I was and I did, so now let me say that the CSB is exactly the kind of translation that the Colorado Springs Guidelines were written to oppose."

"four Bible texts [are] explicitly mentioned in the Guidelines as needing to be translated a particular way....Christian Standard Bible changes two of them to a gender-neutered form"

 

thanks for the update, so guess that puts the Csb and Niv 2011 in same boat of do not use!

 

Or just be aware of editorial/scholarship preferences.

:Thumbsup ... :Thumbsdown

 

Thank you for this link. Extremely helpful!

 

I didn’t see these laid out in the article, assuming one is the Jerusalem Council, does anyone know the other?

 

No, but thank you so much for bringing that to our attention!

Not even the NIV revisers dared to do to that Scripture what the CSB of Lifeway Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention has done:

"The apostles and the elders gathered to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them: 'Brothers and sisters, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you'" -- Acts 15:6-7 (CSB, the 'Christian Standard Bible', 2017)

This is altered from what the predecessor HCSB, and just about every English Bible, had said:

HCSB
"Then the apostles and the elders assembled to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them: "Brothers, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you"

Again, thank you so much for bringing this to our attention, have added it to my file. Very helpful in regards to the recent drumbeating by MacArthur, Founders, etc.

 

Wow. And here I assumed that the HCSB was the more "dynamic" of the two!

 

It's been discussed here in multiple threads. At least one you've posted in. I can't imagine it's that big of a surprise.

So nobody has any info on the 2 out of 4? Guess I'll go digging.

 

I consider it functional or dynamic equivalence.

The
Colorado Springs Guidelines for Translation of Gender-Related Language in Scripture can be found HERE. I assume Bayly means the four in A.3. Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 5:2; Ezekiel 29:11; and John 2:25.

 

Yeah, the statement wasn't long. For some reason, I was thinking he meant NT verses.

 

At this point, it seems that the CSB is a functional equivalence translation, masquerading as (or being marketed as) a formal equivalence translation.

 

Yes, your comments regarding "optimal equivalence" merely being a marketing ploy are "right on the money!" ;)

 

It's a mediating translation just as the NIV and NET Bibles are The old MLB is in that sweet spot too.

 

The Bayly Brother are "out of their minds." (pun intended).